Members of the public who live or work in the District are invited to put one question or statement of not more than three minutes duration relating to items to be discussed in Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered within three minutes, the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary question that arises from the reply.
A person who wishes to speak must register at least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start.
There is an overall time limit of 15 minutes for public speaking, which may be extended at the Chair’s discretion.
Minutes:
The following members of the public spoke under this agenda item:
1. Mark Cordell, Chief Executive, Our Bury St Edmunds Business Improvement District (BID), made a statement in respect of Agenda Item 9 (Report No: CAB/WS/20/021 – West Suffolk Parking Review).
Mr Cordell appreciated the funding challenges being faced by West Suffolk Council and that there had been no recent increases in car parking charges. The car parks in Bury St Edmunds provided both a good service and a quality surface. He also acknowledged the recent work between the BID Chair, Councillor Peter Stevens and the West Suffolk Council Car Parking Team regarding the trial for the pay-on-exit car park in the Town.
Mr Cordell also supported the recommendation to Cabinet to retain the ‘Free from 3’ scheme on a Tuesday and to also retain the night charge in Bury St Edmunds.
Mr Cordell explained that he specifically wished to raise the following issues with the Cabinet. The High Street crisis had hit Bury St Edmunds and 2019 had been the worst year ever for recorded footfall levels in Bury St Edmunds and the level of vacant units was the highest for nine years. He considered that car parking charges were proportionately detrimental to low income households. Public transport infrastructure in and around Bury St Edmunds was poor and cars were the only real option to get to work. To implement these proposed increases in full, from April 2020, would have a huge impact on low income households and urged the Cabinet to reconsider this.
In addition, Mr Cordell also requested the Cabinet to reconsider the reimbursing of the RinGo transaction charges, currently at a cost of £180,000 per year. He considered that this reimbursement was a waste of public money as people who used RinGo were prepared to pay the 20p charge associated with that convenience/choice. Not reimbursing this charge would then provide the Council with the flexibility to reconsider the implementation of all of the charges from April 2020.
In conclusion, Mr Cordell urged the Cabinet to consider the recommendations before them this evening and not to reimburse the RinGo charge, as he considered that this could become an uncontrollable cost for the Council in the future.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, thanked Mr Cordell for his statement and also acknowledged the good working relationship between the Council and the Bury BID. Councillor Stevens wished to specifically refer to the statement which had been made with regard to the Council reimbursing the RinGo charge. He explained that the Council also incurred costs for the collection, sorting and securing of cash in the car parking machines throughout the Town. Therefore, there were competing costs and it must be recognised that a balance had to be struck between the Council’s costs in collecting cash from the machines and the costs associated with card payments.
2. Andrew Appleby, a resident of Newmarket, made a statement in in respect of Agenda Item 9 (Report No: CAB/WS/20/021 – West Suffolk Parking Review).
Mr Appleby explained that the intention of the car parking charges proposals must be to facilitate business and especially retail growth for the towns of West Suffolk. Equally to improve the retail experience for both residents and visitors and to respect the interest of residents, especially those living close to the town centres who experienced problems with parking within the vicinity of their homes. Car parking charges were first introduced in Newmarket to primarily control and optimise the use of limited car parking capacity.
The proposed increase in car parking charges for Newmarket may not seem excessive, but these could be sufficient to reduce the footfall within the town. He would prefer to retain the status quo, whilst the effect of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) (due to the implemented from April 2020) was assessed. CPE could produce increased parking and fines income and improve the parking situation and traffic flow within the town.
Mr Appleby explained he felt increasing the charging period in Newmarket would be detrimental to the footfall within the town. Applying charges from 9am to 3pm would increase the late afternoon footfall. Not starting the charging period until 9am would allow local residents to utilise the car parks overnight, due to the lack of available spaces near to their homes.
Mr Appleby also questioned the suitability of parking in the High Street (except for disabled users, taxi vehicles and delivery vehicles) as drivers seeking car parking spaces disrupted the traffic flow within the High Street.
Mr Appleby concluded by stating that he appreciated the financial aspirations and implications of the proposals, but suggested that the Council must ensure that any changes made were not counter-productive.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, thanked Mr Appleby for his statement and explained that the proposals for Newmarket would be considered by the Cabinet later on the agenda. As had been mentioned earlier in the meeting, Councillor Stevens explained that it was not just car parking charges which were relevant to the health and well-being of Town Centres and that there was a wider debate to be had to address the challenges, particularly the changing nature of retailing.
3. Paul Brown, Manager, Love Newmarket Business Improvement District (BID), made a statement in in respect of Agenda Item 9 (Report No: CAB/WS/20/021 – West Suffolk Parking Review).
Mr Brown stated that this was an unprecedented time with the decline of High Streets, therefore, it seemed an unusual step to increase car parking charges. He fully understood the budget challenges facing the Council, but if Newmarket was to be revived, then in his view, the car parking charges needed to remain at the current level. If there was to be an increase in charges, then these needed to be equitable and fair.
As had been mentioned earlier in the meeting by Councillor Rachel Hood, the surfaces in the car parks in Newmarket were not in an acceptable state. Mr Brown expressed his support of the moving of the market to the High Street and suggested that subsidised parking charges should also be considered on market days. Further, the proposed increases in car parking charges would result in charging from 8am to 6pm.
Mr Brown concluded that if the Cabinet were to implement increased car parking charges, then these should be deemed to be fair and equitable.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, thanked Mr Brown for his statement and stated that he welcomed a close working relationship with the Newmarket BID, to be able to share their vision for Newmarket. Councillor Stevens again emphasised that it was not just car parking that was affecting the health of the market towns. Visitors wanted to come to Newmarket and this must be made as pleasant an experience as possible.
Mr Brown responded and stated that he accepted that there had been increases made to car parking charges in Newmarket in the past, but again reiterated that these were unprecedented times for High Streets. Therefore, no assumptions should be made of the impact that these increases may have at this particular time.
Councillor Stevens responded by stating that the Council was looking to support businesses in its town centres through additional business rate reliefs (which were detailed in the budget papers later on the agenda). Councillor Stevens also explained the aspirations for the promotion of the District’s market towns.